The work environment has become laden with unsafe practices, many of which are reasonably necessary to accomplish certain tasks. Although safety in the work environment has become increasingly important, prior devices have failed to bring a common understanding of actual vehicle operations and new attempts to prevent traffic and workplace accidents need to be implemented. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration are responsible for instituting a number of remedial measures to ensure a safe work atmosphere. However, there are many risks associated with the workplace and traffic environment which impact non-workers, including commercial vehicle environment and operations which impacts environmental safety.
Operations involving cars, trucks, airplanes, school buses and other heavy equipment operations remain especially susceptible to unanticipated safety breaches because of unclear signal communications. In many instances, a heavy vehicle operator is not aware of another person's presence near the heavy vehicle; quite simply, the physical size of the heavy vehicle impedes the operator's full view of the immediate surroundings, occasionally resulting to fatal accidents. In other instances, commercial vehicle operators are not fully aware of the unsafe parking conditions of these surroundings, including parked vehicles which may specifically subject the vehicle operators to prescribed unanticipated safety breaches.
Though vehicles are disposed with mirrors to spot objects within vicinity of operations, these high mounted rear view mirrors only give a partial view of what is directly behind a large vehicle, and only for a few feet. Often, a school bus driver is unable to ascertain whether all children have cleared the school bus' vicinity. While various combinations of lights and physical barriers have been introduced and instituted to meet conventional signal communication demands and to provide the proper safety needed, these devices require (a) fair amount of time to be effectively activated and often result in unanticipated safety complications. Motorists and pedestrians alike simply do not react to the breadth of measures instituted to prevent accidents. Clearly, there exists a need for human voice over safety, a vehicular safety device which prevents common injuries associated with moving vehicles, while at the same time, do not create any further unsafe conditions.
Specifically, these needs may co-exist with other audio safety and communication systems that also communicate to the vehicle operator and passerby, the prescribed mechanical operation of the vehicle, such that when the vehicle is exposed to unsafe parking condition, the communication system communicates to the operator the specific condition. As an example, when the vehicle is parked and at least a window is half open, the communication system will communicate to the operator of the vehicle through at least one of the key pad, the cell phone, and/or at least an external broadcasting or communicating device.
Heretofore, loud-able audio devices have been employed to warn of moving vehicles. The sounds normally heard when some trucks move in reverse provides an attempt to warn nearby individuals of a hazardous situation. However, such sounds are not readily recognizable in areas of heavy traffic. Moreover, the resultant behavior of passerby/pedestrians cannot be forcibly controlled. A simple “chirp” sound might cause one to give attention, but does not cause one to respond timely and also does not communicate any discernible message. Furthermore, despite the implementations of various loud-able safety devices, preventable accidents continue to occur with fatal results.
Specifically, many safety breaches are normally associated with vehicles braking or moving in a reverse direction. Owners of school bus and heavy truck fleets recount incidents in which their vehicles have impacted people who were not visible to the vehicles' operators.
Traditional audible signals, alone or in combination with flashing lights and physical barriers, are not completely effective in creating a zone of safety around or between vehicles and pedestrians. Also the vast amount of noise and commotion associated with loading docks prevents drivers from being able to accurately discern the proximity and number of individuals or objects near the vehicle. Accordingly, the need arises for a human voice over safety apparatus for use with various types of vehicles. Disclosed embodiments provide a safety apparatus comprising advanced human voice over safety which is easily installed and which introduces clear and actual operation of the vehicle, and is educational to children, drivers, and the general public. The human voice over safety apparatus is configured to provide instantaneous information and communications specific to the actual situations corresponding particularly to a zone of operation where danger may be eminent. Moreover, the advanced human voice over safety is an audio safety device configured for distributing various safety messages, so that any appropriate message can be repeated in connection with the current normally encountered situations. Disclosed embodiments further provide a safety apparatus comprising advanced human voice over safety apparatus configured for addressing (a) variety of safety concerns, including addressing a collection of components of the vehicle tailored for situation specific to accident prevention. There is plurality of prior art devices directed to address large vehicle safety problems. The various patents described below are but illustrative of the developments commonly found in the field of the present invention.
U.S. Pat. No. 3,504,336 issued to Oliver W. Boblitz on Mar. 31, 1970, describes a safety seat belt warning system comprising a reel device for retracting a section of a seat belt when the belt is not fastened about an occupant of a motor vehicle. Pressure-sensitive electrical seat switches in the motor vehicle's seats are activated by the presence of a passenger.
If a passenger does not fasten a safety belt, a light or buzzer alert is enabled. The result is not capable of warning a driver, passengers, and pedestrians of vehicular movement or lack thereof. Thus, the Boblitz device cannot provide an early warning signal for enabling prevention of vehicle-pedestrian collisions, as provided disclosed embodiments. Further, Boblitz's device is incapable of delivering a plurality of messages to drivers, passengers, and others outside of the motor vehicle. Moreover, voice-chip technology is not contemplated in the prior art disclosure.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,470,036 issued to John F. Doerr on Sep. 4, 1984, describes a safety light warning system for vehicles comprising three color coded lights to indicate driver foot position with respect to the brake and gas pedals. There is no provision for audio warning signals. Accordingly, the Doerr disclosure cannot be used in conditions involving low visibility, as no provision is made for communicating warning messages, but rather for sustained illumination and flashing lights. Moreover, Doerr's device does not provide driver interface wherewith messages can be selectively broadcast passerby the condition of the actual operation of the vehicle.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,839,749 issued to Eustace B. Franklin, on May 19, 1987, describes an audio reminder system for drivers comprising an electronics system that automatically activates a tape recorder programmed to provide an audible speech message of a specific vehicle fault or a time-dependent personal message. Franklin's device specifically provide a siren detector circuit, a speed indicator circuit and a timed personal message circuit.
Unlike the present invention, no means is provided for communicating messages to those outside of a vehicle. Further, Franklin's device does not even contemplate the need to communicate with people/pedestrians outside of a vehicle. In all, Franklin's device warns of vehicular irregularities and faults; but it does not provide any means of broadcasting audible signals in response to the aggravated braking and/or irregular backing movement inherent in the operation of heavy trucks and buses. Franklin's device is of a remedial nature, whereas the present invention is characteristically prophylactic.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,916,372 issued to James Reavell et al. on Apr. 10, 1990, describes a school bus safety device wherein a stop sign or a crossing arm swings out upon the opening of the bus door. While Reveall's device does communicate with vehicles adjacent to a school bus, it does not provide human voice audible signals or warnings of any kind. Further, it is incapable of displaying alternating or actual situation specific messages, unlike the present invention.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,199,754, issued to Lowell J. D. Freeman on Apr. 6, 1993, describes a safety bar comprising a motor driven barrier for installation on the front end of a school bus. The result is not capable of adequately warning a driver, passengers, and pedestrians of vehicular movement or lack thereof. Freeman's device merely deters pedestrians from walking directly in front of the bus.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,210,521, issued to Gary M. Hojell on May 11, 1993, describes a safety warning system for vehicles comprising a Doppler radar system to detect nearby persons.
When a person is detected close to the bus, the bus driver is warned, thereby increasing the possibility of avoiding an accident. There is no provision for communicating audio warning signals to individuals outside the school bus. Furthermore, Hojell's device is not capable of preventing individuals from wandering precariously close to a bus. The present invention avoids dangerous situations by communicating in human voice auditory, a warning message before an accident-prone situation develops. Moreover, Hojell's device does not provide a driver interface wherewith messages can be selectively broadcast.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,226,686, issued to Glenn A. Triggs on Jul. 13, 1993, relates to a safety gate for school buses, which is mounted on the front bumper of a vehicle. The device is a physical barrier only, and does not attempt to communicate an audible warning.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,357,239, issued to Ronald C. Lamparter on Oct. 18, 1994, describes a safety bar and sign comprising a motor driven barrier for installation on the front end of a school bus, and also, a stop sign deployed simultaneously with the barrier. The result is not capable of audibly warning a driver, passengers, and pedestrians of vehicular movement or lack thereof. Similar to Freeman's device, Lamparter's device merely deters pedestrians from walking directly in front of the bus, but does nothing to warn them that the bus is about to move forward and/or backward. The present invention warns a school bus driver to walk around the bus to ensure that all children have cleared the area before any further bus movement occurs.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,406,250, issued to James Reavell et al. on Apr. 11, 1995, discloses a cold weather stop sign for deployment in conjunction with the opening of a school bus door. Analogous to the prior art discussed above, Reavell's device encourages safe practices in the vicinity of school buses. Unlike the present invention, however, Reavell's device does not communicate an audible message.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,467,071, issued to Don M. Koenig on Nov. 14, 1995, describes a warning kit, which produces a visual safety warning to passengers of a vehicle, and to drivers of nearby vehicles, and audio safety prompting messages that are audible to the passengers. Unlike the present invention, Koenig's device is not capable of allowing a bus driver to emit a message to individuals outside of the bus who are not boarding the bus. Further, Koenig's device is not capable of producing audio messages in response to movement of the vehicle itself, whereas the present invention produces audio messages in response to various input critical variables. The present invention sends messages to the bus driver with reference to the children inside the bus.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,510,763, issued to Norman Deckard et al. on Apr. 23, 1996, is directed to a strobe light on the back of a truck. The light is activated when the truck's transmission is either in reverse or in park, and is contingent upon operation of hazard lights. Unlike the present invention, Deckard's device is not capable of broadcasting an audio message in response the truck's transmission position.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,015,991 issued to William Barr on May 14, 1991, is directed to an alarm system for signaling thereof. The signal is enabled when a vehicles door is open and the selector lever of an automatic transmission is not in its full park position. Barr's device is not capable of broadcasting specifically, the exact prescribed message in response to the predetermined mechanical operation of the vehicle.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,923,852 issued to Jerome Lemelson on Jun. 12, 1990, is directed to a machine operation, which is subject to variations in its operational characteristics requiring adjustments, maintenance or replacement of machine parts. Lemelson device is not, and has no way of educating the operator about a specific predetermined mechanical behavior of the vehicle and did not teach a specific prescribed response to a predetermined mechanical condition of the said vehicle.
European Patent Publication No. 90-100731/14 EP-361, 104-A relates to trim fittings for signaling to the passerby outside of a vehicle, wherein electronic display strips show programmed messages for road users. Unlike the present invention, no means of broadcasting an audio message is disclosed. None of the above noted patents, taken either singly or in any combination, are seen to disclose the specific arrangements or teachings of the concepts disclosed in the present invention.